Quote:
Originally Posted by hateman
(Post 13262767)
I hate it when authors do that. A work (or set of works) should stand alone. If you need to explain that one of the characters is gay at a book reading then what the fuck? Sure, there were vague clues there but it was never integral to the plot and was never an issue in any of the books. It made no difference to the story if Dubledore was gay, straight or bi. I don't see how she can say it's about tolerance when it was never mentioned.
It would be like Conan Doyle's ghost visiting saying that watson was gay. Who cares other than for attention or to sell books?
|
I disagree. I think that any good character has complexities of which are not explicitly stated in the text. If it wasn't for subtext, there's be no art to literature... everything would be a "How To" book. The author must have everything a lot more fleshed out than ever appears on paper for any work to really be considered "literature," imho.
And it's not like the Harry Potter series was a set about sexual exploitations (apart from the likes of which a 10-year-old would grasp)... so I wouldn't expect something of that nature to have necessarily been brought up.
Like you said... it made no real difference to the story (though it might have better explained a couple different relationships in the set)... so what's the point? It seems the only reason it was brought up here is because Ms. Rawling was asked if Albus had ever fallen in love... she gave her answer, and anyone who has read the set of books knows who's she's talking about, and can now better appreciate the dynamic of certain relationships because of it.
As far as Watson goes... I'm sure you know there are still plenty of people debating the nature of his sexuality. Personally, I'd prefer having a straight answer from Doyle on the subject than putting up with the pointless debate every 5-or-so years when it comes up.
But, meh... I guess it can be entertaining after tossing back a few. :winkwink: |
